Saturday, July 5, 2014

Scotland Yard, leaving no stone unturned and no Portuguese citizen unsuspected, has requested that they be allowed to interview all Portuguese citizens and examine their phones.

Bollux Media: Mr. Redwood, wow, this is really incredible! Why is this happening?

Andy Redwood: As many have suspected by our previous actions, Scotland Yard wants to insure that we do not neglect one single lead in the Madeleine McCann case and since anyone could have taken Maddie for any reason, we must identify where each and every citizen of Portugal was on the night of May 3rd, 2007.

Bollux Media: I see. But, then, what about those folk who might have been visiting the country? Does Scotland Yard have a list of each and every person who might have driven across the border and on to Praia da Luz that evening?

Andy Redwood: Don't change the subject; that is a matter for another day.

Bollux Media: Sooo, after you identify all the people that don't have an alibi, ummm, what happens then?

Andy Redwood: Can I get another beer?

Bollux Media: So, let me get this straight. Rather than focus on the things that you know, you are focusing on all the things you don't know?

Andy Redwood: Well, we have to eliminate all the things we don't know so that we can then prove in court what we do know.

Bollux Media: Isn't that kind of a roundabout way of doing things, Mr. Redwood?

Andy Redwood: Not if one wants to spend a lot of time in luxury hotels in Portugal.

Bollux Media: So, what you are saying is that you don't want the defense to claim that you pounced right on the McCanns and ignored other leads?

Andy Redwood: Exactly! Since we don't have enough evidence to prove in court that the McCanns did it, we want to be sure to prove that no one else actually did it.

Bollux Media: Riiiiight. Okay, well, you detective folk sure have a complicated way of doing things that I am sure makes sense to people who understand how law enforcement works.

Andy Redwood: I am glad you finally got the picture.

Bollux Media: Thanks for the interview, Mr. Redwood.

Andy Redwood: You are most welcome. I love the media. Without you, all our efforts would just be wasted.

What
really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in
2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did
something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the
incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence
and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a
theory that is intriguing and controversial.

The Scotland Yard investigation is either a media farce or they have already eliminated the McCanns as suspects, rightly or wrongly. The ONLY reason to be focusing on locals who have questionable or criminal behavior is that they have already established that the evidence pointing to the McCanns is flawed, that they are not involved, leaving only the abduction theory; then their suspects and digging make sense.

So, either it is a farce, Scotland Yard is incompetent, or the McCanns are innocent. Take your pick; these are the only three possibilities.

I'm certain that the McCann's movements must have checked out just perfectly for that evening.

The main reason that these 4 people were made suspects was because their phone activity coincided unfavourably with the McCann's checking routines and movements. So if these routines weren't actually as described then how could the 4 people become suspects?

It’s quite obvious that Scotland Yard is engaged in a public relations exercise with the objective of convincing the public that they don’t believe the McCanns had anything to do with their daughter’s disappearance. No one is going to be brought up on charges. No patsy is going to be specifically identified. It’s quite evident that this was all planned to coincide with the libel trial in order to influence the judge or at least to overshawdow any ruling which is not in favour of the McCanns. It is also quite apparent that there never was any solid lead that would warrant the Portuguese to reopen the case. From what I’ve read there is a law in Portugal which prohibits the cooperation between the two forces if the case is archived, so this is likely the reason that it was reopened.

I don’t know if the judge will be affected by these shenanigans. Whatever decision is rendered, Scotland Yard will divulge to the public a final narrative, a story with a plot but no names. The people who claim to believe that Scotland Yard is actually conducting a proper investigation will declare that there was no whitewash because no one was identified and that Scotland Yard were unable to solve the case so they came up with a story to save face. That’s it.

Guerra, absolutely."a plot but no names". Except of course the media already has a little clutch of names, and that will do.Today in the Star it says that the police BELIEVE one of the men to be responsible for a clutch of burglaries.

Of course that's just the kind of thing the police normally say isn't it? Proof or the 'need to question further' doesn't seem to matter any more.

This is the man with the brain tumour who is being defamed by the way, just in case anyone cares.

Colin,Yes. 'abused' is exactly the right word, and what worries me is the easy indifference that develops when this theatre is carried to such lengths.I know the struggle that bipolar and schizophrenic people face from close at hand. I imagine those questions being put to such a vulnerable man - the cameras, the ensuing press.All of it avoidable. Pawns in some macabre theatre. Just terrible. Heartbreaking in fact.

Yep - it's a farce,They are determined that the tapas crew won;t be interrogated about the phone phone calls they made around the time Maddie disappeared. Let's move on now before they spend another red cent on finding a child there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of finding.

It's quite a unique set of circumstances, how often is a judge who is handling a libel case faced with a situation in which a renowned foreign police force is in his or her country behaving in such a way as to clearly indicate that it believes the claimants are innocent of any crime and that the conclusions of the lead investigator, the defendant, have no basis. Not only that but the National police force is also said to be directing their purported investigation away from the claimants whom the defendant believes are guilty of a crime. Do you think it would ever enter the judge's mind that this fabled force and the Portuguese force are conducting anything other than a proper investigation?

I'm not saying that without a doubt all this activity will influence her decision, but it might. I'm sure if you were in Mr. Amaral's shoes you wouldn't be too happy about all these stories about burglars and drug traffickers taking the child when you're being sued because you claimed that the evidence does not point to an abduction.

The judge may well rule in favour of Mr. Amaral, she should, however if that is to happen you can be sure that Scotland Yard's final narrative will win out, i.e. it will grab the headlines around the world.

We have no idea which way the judge will rule and what will influence her decision. She is a human and while she is to only weigh the judicial issues, we have no idea how she will view those judicial issues and if any personal or political considerations will sway her opinion.

Another aspect of this whole thing people ignore is when it comes to Portugal vs. England, England generally wins...it simply has more clout - financially and politically - and controls more media attention. A bit of a David and Goliath thing here, much as we hate to admit it.

Guerra, the final paragraph of your post is spot-on. I said in a previous post that the "whitewash" will render an Amaral victory as a token one. I think it should be remembered that the McCanns took this action when Amaral stated his intention of publishing 'The Truth Of The Lie' in Britain (it had been available in Europe for over a year). Their central objective therefore was to keep the book out Britain. So when the Yard exonerate the McCanns, what British publisher would touch 'The Truth Of The Lie'? The McCanns will have achieved their objective irrespective of the libel trial's outcome (although they won't get a million if they lose)

Good point. I couldn't sell Goncalo's and my book to publishers here in the US specifically because it challenged the McCanns' innocence and because Scotland Yard was investigating an abduction.

You can be sure Amaral's book, "Truth of the Lie" would never be permitted in England now, but Anthony Summer's book, "Looking for Madeleine" coming out in September gets Hachette. And it will be a hatchet job, all right

At the start of this review Redwood said he wanted this case stripped back to zero or words to that affect.Ive done that too ,prior to this case he and his team sent an innocent man to prison for 8 years for the murder of Jill Dando.So going back to basics here we have an experienced team of whitewashers working on the case. They fit the bill perfect and are no doubt a credit to our corrupt government here in Great Britain.This team are suppose to be the envy of the world? The only thing what has surprised me is they they weren't quick enough to emulsion over that graffiti on that wall in Luz with having their brushes at hand!

I do feel however that she is aware of public opinion in her country and abroad.

That may be the only saving grace, that she will realise that she will become part of the sinister sham we are all witnessing should she rule in favour of the McCann's.

It is as clear as day that the whole trial so far is to the McCann's advantage, in fact in my opinion it is a stage for them.

Don't anybody kid yourselves the only reason Goncalo Amaral has not been stitched up and made the fall guy is because in my opinion the establishment are watching the public opinion and are in fear of a huge backlash.

I really believe that through the bravery of people like Pat, Joana, Tony Bennett, Nigel (McCann files) among others that their commitment to truth and Justice has been inspirational.In fact without their bravery we would have got nowhere.

Even amongst those people who think SY are doing something amazingly clever here, we see the same thread of xenophobia that has run through the entire case.

Despite several PT sources denying a spate of burglaries in PdL, who questions Redwood's presentation of these people as being *the* burglars? This is exactly the drip drip effect of perception that he relies upon. They're skint, they work in a foreign resort, one has mental health problems...ah yes, we know what goes on in these places. At least they "have to be eliminated" don't they? (Unlike the fragrant doctors)

And of course, the Portuguese people are incapable of policing themselves aren't they? Just look at that map of sexual assaults on the Algarve. Drip, xenophobia, drip, third world...drip, PROPAGANDA.

There is an implicit assumption here that where the Portuguese have failed, the might of SY and the genius Redwood can succeed. Good old fashioned England, marching into foreign territories to set them straight.

If I was Kate and was having all this stuff said about me and I was innocent ( well innocent of the actual murder, and not the total disregard for my child's safety and well being) I would have and still would take the lie detector test. If only to prove that the abduction actually did take place. 99 % of the people I know all feel the same, given the known evidence at some point Maddy died in the apartment, and they all covered it up. Everyone of the Tapas lot is as guilty as the parents.

Colin,I sincerely hope that he does do a poor job of it, and that he finds it increasingly difficult to convince people of these unwarranted diversions. I hope that the current political momentum is thwarted to the point of at least one person in authority saying..."ok enough of this."

That is the only reason I comment here!

But the fact is, Redwood doesn't need to do a such a great job of it. I would guess that Pat's blog has a higher hit rate than most, but nothing like a MSM channel. And when we look through the comments we see the same core group of people trying to air the views. We are tiny. The vast majority of people are either indifferent or they are persuaded that what the papers print must have some weight of truth behind it. Propaganda seaps in almost imperceptibly. Time and repetition are it's allies.

I said it at the time of the Portuguese reopening, and I think it still holds true: Operation Grange should be wound up. The jurisdiction is Portuguese. If the Met review has developed information that they think relevant then they should pass it on to the PJ and step out; let them deal with it. They are perfectly capable.

At least I think so. The persistence of SY in what is clearly not a joint operation implies that they think differently.

@ Its ironic the news papers have suggested where madeleine might of been disposed of, yet these same papers were reporting sightings of madeleine being alive?Three twists in a row, so how can any sighting be valid, if any burglars killed her?Does the media read their own contradictions, in any assumptions?And how can redwood state he has leads when the death in the apartment contradicts the sightings?That is the farce the media promotes, drip,drip, design a patsy that carnt sue them, drip, drip.

Maybe not my place to make suggestions in an important high profile investigation but here goes.

The PJ were ( as far as I'm aware)only allowed to track numbers to numbers etc.

They were not allowed to track the content of phones before/after the event as these were British mobile phone providers.

SY are in my view a different kettle of fish and because this investigation was sanctioned by the British Home Office then they could apply to GCHQ or even the U.Slistening station at Fylingdales in Yorkshire even now for any info picked up from PdL on the night or beyond.

It is a long shot but peaks of phone activity are picked up by the spooks after a large scale incident anywhere in Europe.They are historically recorded I believe.

Fair enough after the event occurred will be the peak but trails and traces could lead to backchecking of calls/texts of numbers before the event.

If Redwood has not asked for this to occur then he is not doing his job.

As I say this is a long shot but should be done as a matter of course.

The Home Office can even now make the necessary requests to GCHQ I think.The U.S at Fylingdales would not object as it would not threten USNational Security.

As the Macscamms are obviously guilty, (of something) - I call farce. It seems that we may never see the Tapas 9 brought to justice. Hints of peado activity with DP and the police haven't even called him in?! We've never heard a single word from the Tapas 7, which given their obvious lies and involvement is extraordinary. I think Pat is right; a nice clean whitewash. They'll always know that we know though won't they?...........

Hi Pat,In all normal cases I would agree with your thesis completely, but we have just been through the Rebekah Brooks hacking trial where the defendant appears to have had huge assistance in covering the evidence, is close to Government, was advised by the most expensive reputation management firm money can buy and defended by lawyers whose running costs were ten times those of the prosecution. So many evidence trails were laid the prosecution failed to cover all their bases adequately and at least one witness performed poorly. In the trials of Rolf Harris and Max Clifford attempts were made to undermine witness testimony by querying dates and places from a very long time ago - massive research involved there. We're into a new ball game prosecution-wise, because there's a lot of money in defending celebs.

I would like to suggest that dealing with cases like this could take us into a new policing strategy where anticipating the means used to create doubt in a trial means covering all possible bases before the most prominent figures in the investigation are charged. Who knows what the brief for the private investigators employed to search for Maddie really was, but I suspect they didn't research one to to a definite conclusion, leaving room open for innuendo and doubt remember - 'we'll find Maddie by Christmas'. One has to ask why the original evidence was not enough for the Portuguese to charge the McCanns, but the reasons may be that they created a fog which it would be very difficult for a prosecution to see its way through, they controlled the media, they had political influence, and they have expensive lawyers - just like Rebekah Brooks. Harris and Clifford were convicted because their victims were no longer in awe of them. We don't know why the Tapas 7 have not broken ranks, but we do know accusing fingers have only been pointed at people who are likely vulnerable and had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the time.

If a defending lawyer stands up in court and asks Redwood 'Why didn't you investigate this that was uncovered by say Metodo?, he can say 'we did, and it led nowhere' - he did examine the work of the private detective agencies after all. On the prosecution's side the McCanns cannot rely on the current dog searches as evidence that Maddie was not buried in the vicinity of PDL, because if they do, they have to accept what Eddie and Keela found and explain it.

There is no such thing as any new ballgame or any new courtroom technique or policing strategy. If you don't have evidence to convict the defendants, you haven't got a case. The more stupid scenarios you run down, the more ammunition you give the defense to point out that your case is garbage. Lying during Crimewatch about Tannerman is disastrous to any prosecution. Going public with scenarios that do not include the McCanns shows that the evidence can be considered valid as supporting the abduction theory. Finally, coming up with no solid evidence to prove someone else was involved with Madeleine's disappearance doesn't prove that someone else wasn't involved in Madeleine's disappearance, just that you haven't found the right person, clearly the person you just spent three years searching for, but, what, couldn't find him so you decided to go back and blame the McCanns.

This case is dead in the water and was dead in the water when Scotland Yard started the review UNLESS Maddie was kidnapped by a stranger. If you believe Scotland Yard's investigative review is legit, then you better be preparing to believe that the McCanns are innocent because that is the only possible explanation for the Scotland Yard investigative choices outside of incompetence or fraud.

Poster at 10.16 there was enough evidence to charge the McCanns - certainly for child-neglect and probably for involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. Indeed, Paulo Sargento stated in effect on Spanish television thathad they been a Portuguese couple they would have been jailed. Rosalinda Hutton in her brilliant recent article wrote "the case was solved 7 years ago". She even intimated it was solved on the first night. And obviously the British Government believed the McCanns were going to be charged as they promptly arranged for them to be flown out of Portugal. As for SY, Pat Brown has more than anyone else, exposed this "review" for the sham that it is. Had they been doing a proper "review", they would have just picked up from where the investigation left off 7 years ago and began with the main suspects.Instead they have spent three years and millions in effect discrediting the original investigation. What we are witnessing is the culmination of a political cover-up which will be the exoneration of the McCanns.

I don't believe the PJ thought the McCanns were involved in the beginning; I think they believed it was an abduction which is why they focused on Murat until nothing came up with him and the McCanns and friends' stories weren't matching up and making sense. Then came the dogs and that helped seal them as Arguidos. Even at this point I do not think they had enough to charge them with manslaughter and covering up the crime, maybe child neglect, but that is rarely used except as an added crime to the count or alone if the child hasn't gone missing and the "parents already have paid a heavy price."

There is a lot of misunderstanding of how cases are prosecuted and when. The prosecutor usually only takes cases to court he believes he can win; keeps up his success rate and he doesn't end up looking a fool. Secondly, the bigger the fish, the higher the need for solid evidence because the media scrutiny will be huge and the big fish have big lawyers. The little fish can be brought to court with pretty shaky evidence as long as he can't afford good counsel and no one - the jury or judge - likes him. Then it is a quick trial and many a person has been railroaded this way.

The McCann case is not the latter. To go to court, they need a body and a physical link to the McCanns and maybe a bunch of the Tapas testifying about the events. If none of them will take the stand and there is no body, there is no case. Scotland Yard knew this from the get-go. Now, if they were really after the McCanns, we would see the Tapas 0 being brought back in, a reconstruction staged (even in the UK ...they have enough money to build a block), and the appropriate places being dug up....along with the reanalysis of evidence and reinterviewing of all parties in relation to the Tapas 9. IF they wanted to calm down media speculation, they could have simply said they were going back to the start and putting it all together; the parents are not suspects but they need to be eliminated so that the abduction theory can then be evaluated. We have seen nothing near this, so it's simply not happening.

Here we all are, glued to the circus been marched out to our baying eyes, the mixture of the comical, before the crashing reality of what lies beneath it all,....I mean can you believe what is happening?...I can not contain my disgust at what KNOWN innocent people are been subjected too...in front of the worlds media...all for the lies to continue, the charade to expand and the cover up to be completed.

Its totally failed they know that too...however what can you do they have decided....lets see it through chaps ....the great unwashed will forget what SH@I bags we are in time...anyway in our circles we hardly mix with that type....their not part of our family you see....you know us the "decent" folk!

Anyways...the Libel trial is the finale stage for the McCann's.

Posters watching the case have seen the timings of the investigation, media blitzing..it all creates debate, but it also pulls you away from the issues closest to hand....the Libel trial.

My personal opinion is the libel trial has no base in law....what is happing is all planned and underhanded is what I truly believe.

I do not accept that you can make a legal case against someone without a clear defined case and that means clarification prior not retrospectively....its just a nonsense to me at present.....it all looks like a sequel to the investigation...the last chapter.

Its like one of those "big brother" realism TV shows stretched out into a Hollywood movie.....its got it all...the special effects have been magnificent, and the twists and turns have left me wanting to take up dancing, I tell you what as well....the plot....well the plotting to be more accurate, well its second to non, the work of the experienced it appears....say no more.

Stop the bus ....I want to get off.....the lunatics have taken over the asylum....Help.

1. Involvement of the CPS. Does this imply preparing for a prosecution? Or are the CPS simply the formal conduits for Rogatory letters - hence their early liaison with officials in PT. Highest level to apply pressure.

2. The 'discovery' of Tannerman's irrelevance. Does this validate Amaral's own position? Only if crèchedad actually exists and if his movements tally with his story. If not - and this absolutely critical - then all prospect of prosecution is rendered impossible. The police will be presented as having such a weak case that they need to invent a witnesses (entrapment). Most people who are just casually acquainted with the case will see this as absolving Tanner. Nothing more. A good PR move.

3. Acknowledgement that Madeleine is likely dead, removed from 5a and further concealed. Good, we are back to Amaral's thesis aren't we? We are also back to the only position from which it becomes possible for SY to finally close the case. People know the likelihood of Madeleine's death. By centring attention back to PdL Redwood provides himself with the best opportunity to suggest the alternate scenario of an opportunist abduction/murder overlooked by the "failure" of Amaral's team. He has a readymade cast sitting in the files from which to piece together his "true" story.

4. Use of the dogs. Don't mention the dogs! Does this not validate the first investigation? No. The use of cadaver dogs does not require a public demonstration to make some fatuous little point. Their record and legal standing speaks for themselves . The only way that the initial dog findings are validated is to question the T9. What Redwood says is that although there may have been some initial indications, we have extended their use - and found nothing. PR.

5. Elimination? Start with the T9. Build a case. Can't be bothered with that one any more!

re your 12.20 posting. Can we also assume then that the judge in the current libel trial will come up with a verdict based entirely on the evidence put before the court, and not be the slightest bit influenced by the antics going on in PDL? Many commentators are suggesting that the SY investigation is all timed to influence the judge, which is as good as an admission that prosecutions can be swayed when enough money and effort is put into doing just that.

I'm sure those with an archival mind can give the details, but I recollect there have been successful prosecution in the UK for murder in recent months where there was no body, in recent years where there was no forensic evidence, or where a historic case has been re-opened on the basis of DNA evidence not available at the time of the crime, or where dogs have alerted, all cases involving individuals, but on the other hand there are cases involving politics and the great and the good, in Ulster and Jersey for example, where similar parameters have not yielded prosecutions. The scales of justice have been corroded.

Anon@6.23, Hi,Speaking for myself I don`t feel able to assume anything about the libel trial just yet. The situation in Portugal perplexes me. Their insistence upon Rog requests (as opposed to the lesser resistance of a Joint Investigation) seems to speak of a certain amount of autonomy, perhaps even unhappiness with SY.

On the other hand, it may just be that they are wanting to be seen to do everything within strict margins. The prospect of PT mounting a prosecution without UK cooperation would be **delicious**, but unrealistic I think.

Nevertheless, the Portuguese authorities are ultimately going to face the same dilemma as SY: If there are to be no prosecutions, then how to close? SY have already implemented their route I think, maybe the Portuguese will simply close quietly behind them?

Yes. All of those examples you mention do exist, but of course none of them were surrounded by such a melee of police theatrics, remits, questionable jurisdiction, bizarre identification of `suspects`, bizarre appeals etc etc.

There was nothing extraneous to be seen from the police in those successful cases. They knew their targets. No distraction.

I am not sure how civil court rulings work in Portugal, but in the US, a "politically aware" judge or perhaps a judge who is torn in the decision might well rule in the McCanns favor as far as Goncalo "over-interpreting" the police files in such a way as to cause unnecessary pain and distress for the family but limit the amount of money they receive as damages. This way the McCanns' suffering is acknowledged but Goncalo's "well-meaning if wrong" dogged determination for justice does not bankrupt him.

I know many will argue the fine points of such a final ruling but many times judges rule in ways which do not require an explanation or the explanation given is murky enough to legal while not necessarily a clearcut win either way.

Oh, and, please, no comments on how everything in the Portugal civil litigation system works perfectly. No legal system anywhere in the world has perfect judges and a perfect process. Already the McCann/Amaral case has dragged on ridiculously long so we can see that there are problems in the Portuguese legal system.

I don't want to open whatever wounds exist with Tony Bennett, Blacksmith etc. I don't know the history of the people involved in this, and frankly I don't care.

There was a ruling made as part of Bennett's trial that was staggering. I appreciate the unique circumstances of Bennett having already signed an undertaking, but it is worth considering (paraphrasing):

Judge Tugendhat ruled that Bennett was prohibited from speaking about the facts of the case because of what they could imply to others.

2014. The United Kingdom. Facts prohibited.

I tried to engage several high profile legal bloggers to get an opinion on this - at least to see it mentioned. They were interested right up to the name McCann. Then the shutters came down.

Kate and Gerry are innocent… they just have really really really REALLY bad luck….

In the few minutes their children were left alone between all these “constant” checks….someone kidnapped one of them.

Bad luck!

Then, to add to it, they just happened to get the ONLY condo in the ENTIRE resort that had a concealed death in at some time prior to their visit.

Bad luck!

Later… they happened to rent the ONLY rental car in the whole lot that also had a concealed death in it prior to their renting it.

Bad luck!

And poor Kate just happened to have some people die at her GENERAL PRACTICE doctor’s office (which like NEVER happens) RIGHT BEFORE she went on vacation which put the death scent on her clothing and she just happened also have her childs toy with her that day and had to spend a lot of time in direct contact with the dead person that time.

Bad luck!

A family seeing a man carrying a child away right before they discovered their child missing who just happened to look A LOT like Gerry was just poor luck. And the fact that this “kidnapper” walks and carries his children the same way as Gerry. Just bad luck.

Yep, innocent.

We all should feel sorry for this poor couple.

They just have bad luck and are being railroaded.

All the evidence can be explained away as just bad luck.

Goncalo was just out to get them.Pat Brown… you just got it all wrongAll the bloggers are just not as smart

First and foremost, we are responsible for our actions. Secondly, people will always judge us. The more public we become, they more we will be judged by people who are distant and the more the ability to judge will be tainted by a lack of knowledge of that person's history and a perversion of the knowledge as it goes through channels.

I know this very well. I have been judged repeatedly by strangers because I am a public figure. In entering the public sphere, I well understood I would put myself out there and would have to allow myself to be judged by people who do not know me. They do not know my history and they do not always have accurate information. On top of that, they judge based on their previous experiences, so that can color their judgment. Getting then "misjudged" can be hurtful and painful and, sometime, downright damaging.

The McCanns ended up in the spotlight unintentionally. They had no plans on the night of May 3, 2014 to become "celebrities." (please no comments here on how this was a preplanned crime for the fund). They used poor judgment for selfish purposes and left their children unattended. Something happened...an accident leading to a cover-up or an abduction.

No matter what, the McCanns cannot blame people for judging their clearly bad choice. But they could have humbled themselves and admitted their poor parenting decision instead of claiming their was nothing wrong with it; this led to them being flamed for seven years. Next, they threw themselves into the media spotlight which, again, was their choice. Then they refused to cooperate with police and fled the country. They then sued everyone, further placing the spotlight on themselves. In other words, they lit that fire in the kitchen in many ways and they have to accept responsibility for people questioning their innocence. Their arrogance in the whole matter is one of the things which has fueled the debate (as well as the facts of the case). The McCanns have never known when to shut up, the reason for this is a good question; narcissism, innocence or thou protesteth too much or a combination of both? I lean toward a combination of narcissism that fuels the protest; they do not like to lose. Why they have so much backing in spite of their poor public demeanor is a mystery'; it is like they can do wrong but get away with it, over and over again.

I think there is probably, right now, another little girl in 'training' to become Maddie. She will look the same and will have the same or similar iris defect. We would never know as there is none of Madeleines DNA to compare it with. Case closed, Mccanns innocent, corruption continues.

Your comment has been removed. I specifically asked that no comment be made on how this crime was preplanned because I did not want a debate over that here. I have profiled the crime and I have determined there was an accident on May 3 that was then covered up. This is what the evidence supports, in my professional opinion. While I have no problem with your having your own take on the crime, this is not the place to attack my professional opinion nor do I want to discuss this in this particular blog post.

Ameral wouldn't be stupid enough to let anyone know his new lawyer's phone number and email - He'd immediately be got at by Team Maccann, forcing him to find them innocent or else. No, Ameral's seen that one coming!

Agree completely. Acciednt happened - panic ensued and this is the result. Parents too self centred.madeleine is gone. Time to move on - but no one should forget that Amaral is not the guilty party at the centre of Madeleine's disappearance. He had the 'bad luck' (to coin the phrase from another commentor) to be in the place at the wrong time. Poor guy.

Apart from anything else, make no mistake, the Internet will be targeted next. Just look at Tugendhat's ruling, and think back to Leveson. He referred to the PT files as "tittle tattle", and the McCann's "testimony" referred again and again to the web, not to the press.

Today Leanne Baulch has just reported this from the libel trial:" Kate McCann had said the book has added fuel to the fire in regards to these group, it has caused people to ask them questions in the street and has had an effect on the twins and..."

There are many high profile people in the UK/Europe who would jump at any precedent to get sites taken down. (Look at google)

At the moment the files offer at least a modicum of security. But after Redwood has done his stuff...?

Colin,You are conflating two separate issues.Whether the judge was doing Bennett a favour or not with respect to the undertaking was not my point. I don't know Bennett, and I don't much like his tactics.

I am perfectly aware of the general ruling of those claiming the right to speech, but that is absolutely not "just" what Tugendhat said. The ruling was far more detailed.

All facts are selective. Nevertheless, it is, or should be, a basic principle of a democracy that they can be openly stated, and that people can become informed. If other's attempt to refute or to expand upon the facts then that is their prerogative. We have seen this today.

In libel court Gerry McCann attempted to refute the fact that dogs had indicated positively to the presence of blood in apartment 5a. Thankfully the Portuguese judge had a little more backbone than Tugendhat.

Selective facts: the dogs indicated to blood, and to cadaverine.

I believe there was some talk about nosebleeds...would that explain it? Maybe. Today Gerry McCann tried to deny it completely.

Those are the facts; and in a democracy, I am just about free to seek them out, express them and draw my own conclusions. Perhaps you'd prefer a world where this was less possible.

Tell me how facts can not be mentioned selectively. A thing is either established as true, or it is not.

Colin,The ruling:In his judgment (Paragraph 108), Mr Justice Tugendhat said that even for me to repeat facts in the case could be deemed libellous and a breach of my undertakings. He said in relation to the contents of a certain leaflet: “A list of factual statements can carry an inferential meaning additional to the literal meaning of each fact…”

Colin, If there are 50 facts that the McCanns can promote to discredit Bennett's then that is their democratic right! Gerry McCann attempted just that today. That is how we ought to function. The McCanns have far greater access to the media to put their case.

Facts can and should be the object of debate and contesting interpretation, they should not be prohibited no matter what they infer.

If facts are to be prohibited upon the basis of being perhaps incomplete - not the whole story, then nobody is safe.

You say there might be 100 facts out of which Bennett selects maybe 50 to make his point. Are you happy leaving it to judges to make that decision for you? Do you assume that they are privy to the totality of facts from which to prohibit the grouping of certain ones?

What Leveson called "tittle tattle".

Perhaps you spend as much time contesting the fact that just about every media outlet in the UK calls Amaral a "disgraced detective".

Colin,The difference of my position is that the rights pertaining to the McCanns should be to contest the facts. They are in very strong position to do so. Whereas TB shoves leaflets through doors, the McCanns have the UK media at their beck and call.

I would rather champion the dispossessed, people such as Amaral who invited no media, just did his job. And was crushed.

If you find what TB says objectionable or factually wrong, then what makes you think that others are not capable of making the very same judgement and dismissing him.

We are not children. If you want a nanny state, then good luck to you. It is where we are heading.

I think what all you have said is at the heart of libel issues which, because of the desire for free speech, get confusing. The issues are facts, lies, and intent an harm. For example, I think one of the most frustrating and damaging lies told about me was by a top journalist in a major magazine who was writing to discredit profiling. Never mind that he didn't really understand the issue of profiling and the various forms it takes (I agreed with him to a good extent about FBI style profiling), but, within this very widely read and believed article, he wrote that I said the DC snipers were white. That untruth has been repeated far and wide to discredit me as a profiler; Pat Brown was soooo wrong! And because that untruth was written by a big journalist in a big magazine and repeated ad nauseum throughout the internet and elsewhere, I can't do anything about it.

Now, the guy was dead wrong. I have proof via video.The truth is, I was pretty much the ONLY profiler who said we cannot know the race of the DC Snipers; in fact, I was on air with a retired FBI profiler who DID say they were white and refuted that point very strongly.

So, now we look at intent. Did the journalist intend to lie about me? Or did he confuse me with the other profiler or group me in with a bunch of profilers carelessly? Why didn't he do his homework before making claims about me? Lazy or on purpose?

Then to damages. Yes, it damaged me. But, can I prove how much? Not really. I may have lost business. I may have lost credibility in important places. But, I can't really prove it.

So, I can sue him and it will be a crap shoot how the judge would rule.

LIkewise, if the McCanns chose to sue me (like Amaral) instead of threatening Amazon and removing my book. Did I libel the McCanns? Did I do it maliciously? Did I harm them excessively, emotionally or otherwise? Again, a judge could see these their way or my way so the court decision with Amaral is by no means a slam dunk on either side. With Scotland Yard whooping up the abduction theory, it makes Amaral look incompetent and tunnel-visioned, so it matters if the judge views the facts of the case supporting Amaral's theory or Scotland Yard's.

Just because files are public doesn't necessarily mean Amaral and I have an unquestionable right to "purport theories." It is in our own interpretation of the facts and the intent of that interpretation which can make what we do libelous. We have the right to free speech but if that free speech takes "facts" and interprets them in such a way (twists them, misrepresents them) that causes great harm, there is the potential for this to become libelous.

I have been on the receiving end of much libelous stuff which people claim is free speech. The cite "facts" that aren't always true facts, they take facts and use them out of context, they build stories about me that aren't accurate or representative of who I am, all in an effort to take me down in some way. So I don't agree that all "free speech" is acceptable; such "free speech" has a great penalty for some.

With the advent of the Internet, free speech can become a tidal wave of protest or a typhoon of treachery. It is a tricky issue and there is not a simple answer. The McCann/Amaral case is not so clear cut as people think and I have no idea which way the judge will rule.

It's a missing child case, Anon, and the most serious allegations we are making. We can't just throw together pamphlets as if campaigning for an election, and expect not to be held accountable. As you know a great many of the media want to string us up. It needs serious work, and there are many examples from other cases (mainly in the US) that can guide us in how to approach it.

Colin,You are simply trying to parody my argument, which is a real pity.Of course we are accountable. We are accountable to the facts. I have never disputed that. Are the McCann's not accountable to the facts? At Bennett's trial the "facts" were hardly disputed at all. What was disputed what his right to express them. Selective or not, they remain facts; and we remain adults - able to dispute their validity and context.

"....serious allegations we are making." Well there you speak for yourself. I have made no allegations. I have defended the right of access to facts, nothing more. So what you attack is people's right to infer.

Sorry that you felt the need to characterise me as something I am absolutely not, and try to put words into my mouth.

England's libel laws are draconian, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant and not the plaintiff. The laws are geared to defend the wealthy and muzzle free speech.

It is my understanding that in Portugal in order to be awarded damages for defamation, you also have to prove intent, i.e you have to prove that the defendant actually knew that what he had said or wrote was slanderous or libelous. Mr. Amaral found this out when he tried to sue, for a symbolic small amount of money, that wacky lawyer Mr. Aragao Correia and a university professor Mr. Antonio Dores for defamatory declarations they made in relation to the Cipriano trial. Although it was proved that Mr. Amaral had been defamed, he was not awarded damages because the judge ruled that the defendants actually believed what they had said at the time; they weren't aware of information which contradicted what they were saying. This ruling seems to bode well for Mr. Amaral because he believed and continues to believe what he has said and written.

The detailed rulings of the Appellate court which resulted in overturning the ban of Mr. Amaral's book and the Supreme court's dismissal of the McCann's appeal also bode well for Mr. Amaral and is the reason why the McCanns sought an out of court settlement. The libel trial itself appears to have been a disaster for the McCanns, however from what I've witnessed the Portuguese justice system is fickle so all bets are off.

I'd just like to say one more thing: The person who has actually been libeled and slandered is Mr. Amaral, but no lawyer in Britain will take up his case.

Unfortunately, Anon, much of the content of the first pamphlet is not fact. It simply attempted to throw as much mud as possible. Perhaps not intentionally but passionately, but that makes no difference to the law and the court.

Pat,You're right, the Internet has changed things. And the example you give of a big journalist libelling you is typical I think. A lot of this revolves around access to law. Again..what chance does Amaral have against all of these media outlets that routinely abuse him?

Whilst we try to decipher the various rulings and judgements of the good and great, I think that what we are seeing is a general disenfranchisement. This is why the McCann case looks important to me.There appears to be a momentum that is trying make Amaral's investigation appear "historical" and discredited. If the facts can bear this out then fine. But until such time I think it should be possible for his findings to remain in the public domain, and for people to infer what they will.It is my belief that we are on the road to making this impossible. The ramifications then go well beyond this one case.

Colin,If that is the case with the first pamphlet then well and good. Libel is libel, and perhaps TB does then do this entire 'cause' more harm than good.

I am trying very hard not to make this personal as regards TB (as it happens I find him a very unappealing character). But that was never my point.

That judgement from Tugendhat does, however, pertain to "facts" and a person's right to express them.

You are right, these are serious issues, and TB strikes me as a not altogether worthy champion of such a cause. Nevertheless the stakes are high, and there are those in power who are working very hard to diminish the '"small person's" access to law and to facts.

Money has always been a deterrent to justice. Anne Bremner was willing to represent me pro bono if the McCanns sued me in the US, but for us to go after them in the UK ended up requiring the hiring of British attorneys and I couldn't fork out that much cash, especially when the chances of a successful suit in the UK was extremely low in comparison to the US. This is why I couldn't sue the McCanns for Carter-Rucking me and they didn't sue me.

The other big issue is the Internet. Once the libel has been accomplished, it proliferates hugely across the web. All of my books have been illegally "reprinted" on the Internet and are downloadable for free and anything said about me has multiplied quickly and so the original libel turns out to be just a catalyst. All of this is so new it makes libel an even more tricky issue.The McCanns are right to some extent that Goncalo's printing of his book led to it fueling anti sites. The fact you can now read Goncalo's book for free and in English on the Internet shows how it isn't just reaching a few people. This is the same reason the McCanns Carter-Rucked me off Amazon. My cheap book listed right under theirs was getting very popular. When one writes anything about anyone they ability for what they say to go viral has to be now taken into account when they say it or write it. So responsibility for what one puts out there is a huge issue.

I couldn't agree more with your last sentence, Anon. I don't know about the law side (legal aid etc.) but the media issue isn't new (Orwell was writing about exactly the same issues we're still talking about re: press ownership, regulation and media access).

Pat,I agree that there is a huge responsibility for what we put out there. But certainly here in the UK I think that the failure of a few individuals to assume that responsibility is being used a weapon with which to diminish the rights of all of us.We must also remember to credit people with enough intelligence to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The facts of this case are very different from the issue of purporting theories or making conclusions. And this is all the more so with professionals when they make their conclusions public rather than behind the scenes during the scope of the investigation.

The problem with making one's conclusions public outside the investigation or a court of law is the simple truth that what we conclude may, in fact, be wrong....because we only are going on evidence that we can access and using our skills to the best of our ability. Some people think this is why we should only do so within a professional venue.

When I wrote my book, I based my conclusions on what "I" believed the evidence supported. I stated that this was only a theory that could support probable cause to make the McCanns suspects, not defendants. I was not saying they are guilty, only that the evidence should encourage further investigation of the McCanns as having possible involvement in the crime. To a great extent, I need to defend my competence in analysis and that I had good cause to come to my conclusions. Suppose I am absolutely horrible at crime analysis and profiling (and some claim this) and I took the evidence and created a ridiculous fictional account of what may have happened that was in no way supported by the evidence. Then, the innocent McCanns would rightly be furious that I twisted facts to point the finger at them; I have had that done to me, so I know it is indeed done and I know how I felt about that. Sometimes, I have had to go back and reread my own books because the review was so terrible and so cleverly misrepresented my work, that I had to be sure I didn't actually write what they said I did!

For example, my book, The Murder of Cleopatra. I have read reviews that said I offered nothing new and did no research to establish anything of interest or discussion. What? I wrote a book with a huge departure from traditional thought: I said Cleo was murdered, that she didn't likely have Julius Caesar's child, that Antony was in on the murder of Julius Caesar, that Antony was murdered by his own men, that Antony was not head-over-heels in love with Cleopatra, that Cleopatra was not hiding in a tomb, that Cleopatra was trying to escape Egypt with her ships, etc. I spent years researching this at home and in Egypt. Another reviewer pointed out how much work I had put into researching ship building, Actium, war in the day, troop movements, architecture of tombs and temples, etc. In other words, many book reviews are not just opinions (Pat Brown's theories are stupid in my opinion, her writing sucks, the book was boring to me) but downright libelous. And, guess what? I can't do a thing about it.

So, profiling a case as Amaral and I have done also has inherent problems of what is truth and what could be lies. Amaral and I don't even agree on all determinations; we profile certain aspects of the crime differently, find the facts mean different things. Amaral believes Maddie was stored in a freezer which accounts for the water in the hire car. I believe she was transported on ice. I have no idea which one of us is correct or if either of us is correct. All we can do is explain why we think the evidence supports our conclusions and let people decide if we are right. Problem is, normally this is decided inside a police investigation or the courts, not on the Internet and in the media. This changes to some extent the impact of our books and theories.

I waited to write my book until after Kate published hers; I wanted the McCanns to put what they think in black and white and I felt once she went public with her own theories, then other theories could well be out there. Amaral published far earlier in response to the shelving of the case; he felt the truth was being squashed and justice hijacked and he took the risk of putting what he considered the truth out there and he may pay the price for doing so.

I have no clearcut idea how this libel case will turn out. In fact, I am not sure as a judge what I would rule; it is not that simple a case, in my opinion. One thing I am pretty sure about, the Scotland Yard faux investigation seems to be timed to support the McCanns' innocence and show just how wrongly Goncalo interpreted the facts.

Sadly, Colin, since Summers contacted me just to get a few quotes in time to print the book and dodged my questions and wasn't interested in any real profiling, I can predict it is a pro book.

Also, one of the biggest problems with good nonfiction writers is they have such good prose they can lull people into believing what they write is well-researched, logical, and truthful. In other words, they can fabricate stuff really nicely. I felt this way about Stacy Schiff's book, Cleopatra. Lovely writing, quite convincing if you haven't done massive research. Not a bad book, just not one with real analysis of evidence. On the other hand, I wrote a very evidence based Cleopatra book, the first ever of its kind. Unfortunately, I don't have a Pulitzer Prize for my fine writing style; it isn't great but it is very thorough in laying out the evidence and explaining what it means. But, most people would prefer Schiff; hers is a better read.

I think Summers is going to be this; well-written and a manipulation of the facts to create a story people will accept and the McCanns won't Carter-Ruck (if they weren't behind this book to begin with).

People have, guerra. At least they have suggested that if it was abduction it likely didn't happen from inside the apartment. Danny Collins suggested that.

But they didn't make documentaries. I think it was the documentary Mr Amaral appeared in that they feared: they probably feared he or someone else would make more if they didn't take action.

But I don't think there's a problem with writing as opinion that you don't believe there was an abduction, as long as you clearly state it is possible one took place (because it is, and books have to be honest).

Understanding that I do not understand all the technicalities of the legal system in Portugal with regards to libel.

BUT…

Isn’t the main issue for the Mccanns that this book has affected the search for Madeline?

In that case, would they not have to prove this has happened? I am not sure how you would prove that.

THEN…

Can Amaral argue that if her own parents do not search for her and are in another country doing nothing to find her, that her own parents refused to answer questions, re-enact the timeline or ask for the case to be opened….. that if anything is affecting the search……. it’s her own parents refusal to look for her or support the investigation.

"But I don't think there's a problem with writing as opinion that you don't believe there was an abduction, as long as you clearly state it is possible one took place (because it is, and books have to be honest)."

At the moment there may not be a problem with denying an abduction. But that is what this is all about. That is the grip that they are seeking.

I don't think that it is necessary to state every possibility within a single context. Do the newspapers ever state the alternate possibility that might support Amaral's investigation? Why do you consistently side with power as opposed to protest? Was 'Madeleine' an honest book?

You have said yourself that you begin to regard the SY review as a farce (and I agree with you). We are actually making a very serious point by saying that. We are suggesting that SY are deliberately making a mockery of the search for a likely dead child. That is the inference that we draw from events. Can you not envisage a time when such inferences become impossible to express? When in effect we have a police state and we are unable to question the reins of power and their 'authorised' versions.

Leveson has said of phone hacking that he finds "no evidence of police corruption."

Which is nice.

What illegal payments?

You seem to have abundant concern for what the McCanns might fear. Perhaps try representing what children might have to fear from being abandoned, or police officers from being thwarted from exercising there duty and ultimately being reduced to penury.

Well, it is the unsulved cases, open endings.If whithin weeks a case is solved,people forget it soon.The murder of Keith Bennet is solved.But his body never found.So the SY could dig their own soil.Solving.I dont know what can be espected to be found.The Dutch girls only missing for weeks in Panama.. well, the jungle do compost body's very soon.Only bones.The Dutch boys missing and killed by their owm father were found in the water tied up.Also it took dna because they could not identify them.Or the course or dead was.A body in the water for weeks is a terrible sight.

In the swamp they can find people very intact after many, many years.

An unsulved case do effect people.So the Libel case, The Digs, The crimewatch touring Europe..

Well..People stopped looking for Madeleine?Well..It was a huge amount of money involved in the search..Even unpaid.I only met one with her 'cateye' on both eyes.(Also had many other issues)I do have a friend with 2 colour eyes,one blue, the other green and blue.I do notice such things..It is not I do go out,or have been looking in bins.But if I see a girl with her 'flack' It would be noticed..

Colin name me one person in Britain who has the ear of the public, not a bloke that you encountered in some pub, who has stated in the media that they believe that the child was not abducted? It's so bloody obvious that for whatever reason, people have gone to great lengths to protect this couple.

Anonymous 4:04PM what the McCanns are essentially trying to argue is that the public has an obligation to search for their daughter and that Mr. Amaral's book convinced many not to do so, it's a ludicrous argument. It is nonsense.

Anonymous 4:21PM The Portuguese police was prohibited by a Portuguese judge from accessing the contents of text messages sent by the couple ending any hope the Portuguese had of solving the case. One doesn't know what is going on behind the scenes but I suspect that a few people are getting blackmailed.

Guerra, who was protecting them the day MG did his searches? Who was protecting them the day they were made arguido? There's no mystery about who was protecting them just a week later: top legal firms and a small army of PR... and they have been ever since. The case was the first of its kind involving British political class, and that's all that makes it unique, imo. They were embraced - and protected - by their allies.

Does anyone really believe that a mother of two, involved full time in the search of her missing daughter (apparently ...) marathon runner finds the time to write a book ? Really ? The book was obviously someone else's work and passed as her own ; not that it matters much, but it's just another piece in the puzzle of *why* are these people so important.No-one seems to pay much attention to this question but to me, the answer to *why* they are being so strenuously protected would lead *direclty* to the solution of the mistery.

For the same reason the UK opted out of the Euro ( = "we, the UK, will be a Member State of the European Union only for what it suits us and give up what doesn't") and the EU let it get away with it: because there are countries who have more power and exert that power.Haven't you heard? International Law is no man's land ...ah... don't get me started ...

What I don't get - really don't get - is that SY have been seen to be very proactive in reviewing phone calls and investigating places of interest. The exception is phone calls etc made by those who are known to have been there at the time. What is stopping them going back to square one and getting information from the tapas 9 and investigating those calls and texts? To goback to looking at people who were in PDL and question them at length but miss out on those who were there and claim to have seen Maddie at specific times beggars belief. I would have thought that basic processes going back through a "cold case" would look at every single detail, not just bits and pieces.

Colin, dear oh dear. You managed to keep things civil for how long? You betray yourself. WELLDONE. You never answer a direct question do you:Is "Madeleine" an honest account? Does it not make use of selective facts? Is it not aimed at fanatics?

I don't know what you think of Pat`s Profile of the case. Is it aimed at fanatics? Perhaps you think it should be subject to a Tugendhat style ruling? Already it has been pulled from Amazon, and as Pat says, she was left with no recourse to law. (And said elsewhere, the press releases issued by herself and Anne Bremner were ignored.)

Again, I don`t know your thoughts on Kate McCann`s `Madeleine`. Perhaps you think it the authoritative account of events, which harms no one. Kate`s book was released through a major publisher, on sale all over the world. It has been serialised in the nationals and reviewed globally. I think it was even mentioned in our own major enquiry into press ethics. Yes, ethics: `the McCann test` (leveson yet again).

Pat has found herself unable to discuss the McCann case on air, not for love nor money.

The McCanns on the other hand seem to have all our mainstream channels at their feet. Kate was recently interviewed across all major uk channels, saying very little, and yet deemed newsworthy enough to make every BBC bulletin.

Does all of this happen because Kate McCann is a well known bastion of truth, whereas Pat Brown is a proven liar?

You invoke Orwell. And yet it is here (amongst us struggling small fry) that you choose to pick through our attempts to discuss and interpret the case, not those of the McCanns and the MSM. You are a rank hypocrite.

Sooner or later we have to choose a side of the fence from which to take a stand. I prefer Hannah Arendt to Orwell: `if you say to yourself `who am I to judge`, then you are already lost.`

Apparently SY stated from day 1 that the parents's involvement was out of the question didn't they?

GA writes in his book (if one is to believe him, which I *do*) that when the PJ first looked at the couple's cell phone's call records ... they were empty. All calls deleted but one, from Gerry to Kate, which possibly Kate had forgotten to delete (funny, though that her cell would record an incoming call from Gerry, while Gerry's cell recorded no outgoing call to her, ludicrous really :D ).Now, are the MC so stupid as to believe that deleting their own cells records would be enough to stop the PJ from having access to this information ?noooooo ... of course not; the calls would still be on record at the mobile service operators, would they not?So what could they expect to achieve with this very childish move?Well, they could, for example, expect to gain time: the PJ not being able to view the couple's call records and by the time they asked to be given the records by the operator the whole political protection mechanism had already been dutifully put in place. I think Amaral was doomed from day one (ok, maybe day 2 or 3, that is when he found RMurat was not involved...)

Colin, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I'll repeat it again.

Name me one person in Britain who has the ear of the public, not a bloke that you encountered in some pub, who has stated in the media that they believe that the child was not abducted?

Did you ever notice how some people who say that they believe there was no abduction occasionally slip in a comment to create doubt, however when someone suggests that there was political interference it's like stirring up a hornet's nest then there is no more subtlety in their comments.

Mr. Martin Grimes and his dogs did their job as did Mr. Amaral. As did the English ambassadors to Portugal who were replaced because they warned the government that there were discrepancies in the McCann's account of what happened.

I think there are limits to what good PR can do. Was it good PR that resulted in Politicians accompanying the McCanns to the European Parliament when Mr. Rebelo went over to England to witness the questioning of the Tapas gang? Was it good PR that resulted in Mr. Cameron starting this review / investigation, on the eve of Mrs McCann's book release, with the exchange of open letters in the Sun newspaper? Was it good PR that convinced Mr. Redwood to engage in a PR campaign of his own to convince the public that they believe the McCanns had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance? I don't believe so, if you do or if that's what you want to convey well so be it.

Well well well. The British govt has a heck of a lot of explaining to do right now. Cover ups, missing files 100 to be precise, suspicious and indecent behaviour by members of the govt and not to mention the infamous P word floating about. I wonder what distraction the govt.will find to throw the public off the scent. The PM promised to leave no stone unturned. Now what does that remind you of.....hmmm.

I feel we are back to square one when people were making guesses as to why the Mcanns were given so much help from day one by very influential people. One Prime Minister took a few minutes break at an important state meeting to talk to his counterpart and suggest that the case should be closed and then another PM publicly promised to find Madeleine while using public funds to the tune of 7 million pounds. Can that all have happened because Gerry is a fellow Mason?? I rather doubt it. He may have reached the 33rd degree like other important govt servants but I really don't buy that.

IMOH The Mccanns are taking advantage of a situation that happened in PDL i.e Maddies' death which was covered up by OC. The holiday resort was told by the local govt and the British govt to cover up what really happened. It is very difficult to imagine a VIP hanging out in PDL unless there was something that interested him or her that might not have been available in a more posh holiday resort. Believe you me there are some really top of the line hotels/golf courses along that coast.Here is where there are so many question marks. The VIP person might have been doing something embarrassing/illegal that he/she would not like to be advertised all over Britain. Perhaps Maddie's death and the publicity threatened his/her status in the UK etc. Lots of motives for not wanting to be seen in the ensuing chaos. He / she needed to be protected and perhaps even whisked away. Damage control was in place right from day one. There were so many distractions and red herrings to start off with. It took GA quite some time to get onto the right track. This reminds me of flight MAS 370 One week went by before the info. about the change in direction of the plane was made available to the public. The Maccans were told what to do by these damage control guys but then things went wrong hence the famous "they've taken her." Martians ?? No the people who were busy cleaning up the flat and the incident. People who were not willing to tow the line and were removed such as the people at the consulate and the first few British policemen on the case. They too disappeared early on. I think it is this knowledge that the Maccans have that keeps the whole charade going on.There is a sort of unhealthy symbiosis. Both the VIP and the Maccanns benefitting from protection from govt officials. I think that after 7 years the VIP is wanting out. The mcanns are becoming an embarrassment as the public doesn't really believe them anymore and so the only way to leave this sticky mess is to declare Maddie dead and find a patsy so that the VIP can get on with his/her life and the Maccanns could either gracefully concede that Madeleine is dead and close up shop or rather the fund. or they can carry on the farce. They did say they would continue until they had concrete proof that Madeleine was dead.

I think that the reason why Portugal and Britain have some sort of uneasy understanding over the Madeleine case is because both countries appreciate what it could be like to have a scandal that could bring down a govt.

"Kate Healy - He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later [sic, car was rented 23 days later]."

Another Mccann comment I had to share. I guess this was from the recent trial. I have the link below for the full transcript. But what she says now has me convinced that they did in fact move Madelines body. She does not state that the comment was untrue, only exaggerated!

Judge - Do you recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?

Kate Healy - He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later [sic, car was rented 23 days later].

Also I love how here she states the documentary affected the searches but that they were the only ones making an effort. IF you are the only ones making an effort (although not searching is hardly an effort) then how did it affect anything.

Judge - What did you feel about the documentary when compared to the book?

Kate Healy - It was worst in terms of damages, because it was more definitive, Mr. Amaral's assumptions were more unequivocal, it led the audience in a journey of certainties. It compounded to the anxiety and feeling of injustice at a time when we were the only ones making efforts to find Madeleine. There was no police force investigating and it damaged the searches.

Mr Mitchell said: "The public have been very kind over the last three years and continue to make donations, but the fund directors look to the future and, while there is no crisis, it is prudent to consider ways of keeping a funding stream running so the search can continue – not that the search will stop if the money runs dry."

Mr Mitchell said: "The public have been very kind over the last three years and continue to make donations, but the fund directors look to the future and, while there is no crisis, it is prudent to consider ways of keeping a funding stream running so the search can continue – not that the search will stop if the money runs dry."

@ At some point kates own book can come under fire in the same arguement about inapropiate material, relating to damage others, and the very questionable choice of words not fit for any child to read?Like the very disturbing dream she allegedly had, about seans sister madeleine!Kate manipulates this arguement in her own contradictive beleifs to any vision of a child being alive?Not a vision some one is looking after their daughter?This never made sense, so it needs to be asked who these people are then, because if the person is still at large?This rules out anyone that has died, and redwood hasnt got a patsy?

@ In the 7 years this case has been running the gauntlet,there isnt no identical crime since around any other group doing checks?So gerry cannot state anyone is still at large without evidence of a identical crime?The police do not have such evidence when it obvious their back to where they started?I would think the judge can discount pr statements made by media spin, and deal with the issue about damage to any search?What is under question is why the maccanns hired exspensive lawyers, and other pr people to speak for them?These people have not been involved in any search, only to protect the parents image?So what funds have been used for a search?Sy had worked on the case for 3 years?But obviously needed funds to carry out the work?How come there hasnt been no finance from the limited company, paid to aid the search in portugal?

The PJ wanted to tap the phones of the Tapas 9 early on but the application to the British departmentdenied the request ( privacy etc )

As I've said in a previous post elsewhere on here this Operation Grange is a British Home Office backed investigation and it is possible for SY to request from various sources ( GCHQ and Fylingdales? ) phone activity virtually all the messages and texts sent that evening.

This analysis would not be aimed specifically at the so called Tapas 9 but ALL post alarm messagesand texts. Namely the messages andlogs of the contents of those calls.

I'm surprised that DI Redwood has not take this course of action. SY has every right to request it.

Now they (SY) are focussing on ex Ocean Club driver who is said to be in ill health. Why? because he made phone calls or sent a text at "about the time Madeleine Left the creche" "about 9.25pm he also sent a text""at 9.38pm" The above calls/ texts were supposedly made "around the time that two of the McCann holiday group left the tapas bar at the Ocean Club to check on the children sleeping in apartments nearby" and

"around the time that another member of the holiday group went to check on the children".

The times given by the tapas lot seems to be full of holes in accuracy but everyone nearby - apart from the aforementioned tapas lot - is questioned again. This man (and all others mentioned this far) was questioned in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Rearrange the following words....

@ At present amaral is broke, and living in poverty, according to a article in the maCcann files?No supprise after they froze all his finance and assets, and living on a reduced pension?What is so alarming about this, is the maCcanns reaction they might not see a penny for a number of years?And since no final jugdment has been agreed on this libel case?How is amaral supposed to raise such amounts when hes a ruined man?This threat was made in kates own book about amaral, she wanted him to feel fear and misery?How odd this threat appeared before sean said anything about his sister?Yet misses the point about madeleines statement in her own book about being left alone?So in what selection did sean make this comment from, not reading kates book, and forbidden from information kate and gerry control?So why would kate hide the truth allegedly in her own book from her own son, about his sister!

Join Our Mailing List!

Twitter

By Pat Brown

"Killing for Sport is the most valuable insight into the minds of serial killers that you will ever read. While other profilers tend to conceal the clear facts behind complex technical language and psychobabble. Pat Brown actually tells it like it is."